| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| lol - what's becoming increasingly obvious is that your basic reading and comprehension skills seem to be sadly lacking. try reading it again.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | lol - what's becoming increasingly obvious is that your basic reading and comprehension skills seem to be sadly lacking. try reading it again.... |
Its not my comprehension that is a problem here - it is your gullibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Its not my comprehension that is a problem here - it is your gullibility. |
if you think my interpretation of mcintyre's comments means that I am "gullible" it merely confirms your inability to read, understand and interpret plain english.
OK - I will try one more time....
I posted the full text of Mcintyre's report from the pentagon on september 11th 2001 above, but i suppose that the following 2 excerpts are the most pertinent:
1
"....And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."
2
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
what I glean from your barely coherent replies to my post is that - according to you - his comments mean that:
"He reported what he saw which was that a 757 was not evident and that a plane had not appeared to have crashed."
and
"He mentions small pieces and is astounded at the lack of evidence of a crash of a 757 at the Pentagon. Trying to twist his own words to make it sound like he was referring to a different crash "near" the Pentagon is feeble!"
what the * are you talking about?
please explain.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. |
He saw a few small parts and a sheet of glass. YOU read it!!! It is not what you expect to see when a 757 plane has supposedly crashed!!
In response to
"Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building? "
He says " there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Just what is it that makes you think a 757 hit the Pentagon based on that!!???? And ffs do not come back and say he was responding to a question about a plane hitting "near" the Pentagon. It is obvious he is reporting there was but one impact site and ZERO evidence of a 757. The wreckage was almost non existant and parts were too small. I KNOW what the spin is meant to be after the event. You believe that nonsense if you want to - I prefer to believe what he SAID!!! I know that something hit it but it clearly was NOT a 757 and that is what he was revealing so he had to be forced to change his meaning and go through hoops but only an imbecile would fall for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | And still how do we explain the light pole hitting a taxi, if the light poles were planted? |
I could think of several explanations but why speculate? You seem to think it is impossible to stage events or get people to lie. |
Yes, that's the answer, everyone is lying and you can't trust anyone at all, apart from some guy who you've never met, who made a video and posted it on the internet. He's the one telling the truth, and hundreds of thousands of other people are lying. Yeah. Right.
You people scare me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: |
He saw a few small parts and a sheet of glass. YOU read it!!! It is not what you expect to see when a 757 plane has supposedly crashed!!
|
What exactly do expect to see when a plane hits a concrete wall at over 450mph? You expect it to go "oof" and just sit there in 5 large pieces on the lawn? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Point of information:
Trading insults and judging each other's reading ability is not a tactic used either in the legal process undertaken in a court room, nor is it one used in developing academic or scientific papers.
Arguments tend to go in circles when such remarks are made and it is indicative that participants may have developed that strange web-disease known as "foruminsultitis"
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jason67
Moderate Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 129
Location: SE London
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | blackcat wrote: |
He saw a few small parts and a sheet of glass. YOU read it!!! It is not what you expect to see when a 757 plane has supposedly crashed!!
|
What exactly do expect to see when a plane hits a concrete wall at over 450mph? You expect it to go "oof" and just sit there in 5 large pieces on the lawn? |
Well I dont expect it to slide into a small hole, wings and tail folding in neatly, punch through five rings of concrete, turn into vapour, but still be able to identify over 90% of the bodies.
All they need to do is show the world the cctv shots from the various other cameras, job done. We have seen the planes flying into the wtc buildings a million times, so why not so us these? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What exactly do expect to see when a plane hits a concrete wall at over 450mph? You expect it to go "oof" and just sit there in 5 large pieces on the lawn? |
I have no expectations!! Where are the pieces of a 757? Are you saying there should be no large pieces on the lawn? How do YOU know? Are you an expert in plane crashes? An engine is immense and made of pretty resilient stuff - where are they?? The engines? Why do you push this jibberish? Is the next step the melting steel at wtc7?? * off *!!! You are a shill !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Point of information:
Trading insults and judging each other's reading ability is not a tactic used either in the legal process undertaken in a court room, nor is it one used in developing academic or scientific papers.
Arguments tend to go in circles when such remarks are made and it is indicative that participants may have developed that strange web-disease known as "foruminsultitis" |
I totally agree with the last point - but if somebody goes around pretending to be "mr pentagon expert" and insists on calling everybody who disagrees with him "gullible", "crackpots", "shills" etc while repeatedly demonstrating that he can't even read and understand plain english - it is valid to point out that it casts a rather large shadow over his credibility.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | hmmmmm - where exactly did I say that I thought a 757 hit the pentagon based on what this guy said? or at all? |
You are having a laugh!!  I get it now.
| Quote: | | I don't know what hit the pentagon and neither do you.......... the available evidence (although far from definitive) is consistent with the possibility that it was a 757.... |
And my my....don't you like presenting all that "evidence" - almost like you are trying to convince people that a 757 DID - not COULD HAVE- but DID hit the pentagon. I wonder why you would do that what with you being a 9/11 truther and all!!!!
I particularly like the nice round hole that the 757 made as it exited the umpteenth reinforced wall - they make aluminium tubes pretty resilient these days. Excellent piece of evidence that it was a 757. Why I bet the nose cone is just out of the camera shot.
I have to say you have a point about me not understanding the journalists remarks though. When he says there is no evidence of a plane having crashed and there are only small pieces of something and the only part he mentions the colour of is green then I fail to see he is describing the wreckage of a 757 with red white and blue markings. Yup - you got me there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | hmmmmm - where exactly did I say that I thought a 757 hit the pentagon based on what this guy said? or at all? |
You are having a laugh!! I get it now. |
I'm not actually....the fact is that I didn't say it. if you disagree, please point out where I did....
| Quote: | | And my my....don't you like presenting all that "evidence" |
if you're trying to prove a point, evidence helps (you need to learn this)....
| Quote: | | - almost like you are trying to convince people that a 757 DID - not COULD HAVE- but DID hit the pentagon. I wonder why you would do that what with you being a 9/11 truther and all!!!! |
you're behaving like a small child....
| Quote: | | I particularly like the nice round hole that the 757 made as it exited the umpteenth reinforced wall - they make aluminium tubes pretty resilient these days. Excellent piece of evidence that it was a 757. Why I bet the nose cone is just out of the camera shot. |
if you acquainted yourself with some of the evidence, maybe you'd realise how ridiculous your comments are....
| Quote: | | I have to say you have a point about me not understanding the journalists remarks though. When he says there is no evidence of a plane having crashed and there are only small pieces of something and the only part he mentions the colour of is green then I fail to see he is describing the wreckage of a 757 with red white and blue markings. Yup - you got me there! |
grow up....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | you're behaving like a small child....
maybe you'd realise how ridiculous your comments are....
grow up.... |
Hmmmm you certainly know how to argue your case.
Now about the 757 stuff. There is NO evidence of a 757. I would agree there's evidence of a plane, but I have to wonder why you keep on insisting this is a 757. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IronSnot wrote: | | Hmm you certainly know how to argue your case. |
| Quote: | | Now about the 757 stuff. There is NO evidence of a 757. I would agree there's evidence of a plane, but I have to wonder why you keep on insisting this is a 757. |
I haven't insisted it's a 757 on a single occasion. why do you claim that I have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jake wrote: | is consistent with the possibility that it was a 757....
the eyewitness evidence tends to support the idea that it was a 757....
the claim that the aircraft's manouevres could not have been done by a 757 is disputable....
the damage/displacement to the lamp posts, cable spools and generator could have been caused by a 757....
he damage to the pentagon is consistent with the impact of a 757....
the debris shown in photographs taken at the scene could be from a 757....
moreover - many of the claims which have been made by people who insist that no 757 hit the pentagon can easily be shown to be false
|
But I can at last agree with you about something.
| Quote: | | one of the funniest of these is the ludicrous claim made by eric hufschmid that a photo of a few guys carrying a blue tent is actually damning evidence of the new world order illuminati trying to cover up something sinister |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I haven't insisted it's a 757 on a single occasion. why do you claim that I have? |
Could it be that you make posts like the following extracted from above on this page??? Oh you don't SAY that it was a 757 - you just post reams of "evidence" that it was that's all. You little tinker. You remind me of a certain journalist who reported from the Pentagon .........
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
to blackcat: unless you actually are less than 10 year old, you really do need to grow up....
to ironsnot:
oh come on - all I'm saying is that it's a possibility....
and it's true that many of the claims which have been made by people who insist that no 757 hit the pentagon can easily be shown to be false. this can be confirmed over and over again if you actually check through the links I posted....
it's also true that these mistakes can be used to tarnish those who disagree with the official story as a whole....
I don't know what hit the pentagon and neither do you. so why insist that it could not possibly have been a 757 when you can't prove it either way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't prove it wasn't a chocolate elephant that crashed in to the pentagon either. Negatives are notoriously difficult to prove. I will not be entertaining the notion that it was a chocolate elephant however as I find the idea absurd. NOW do you see why I find your repeated assertions that a 757 may have hit the Pentagon to be risible. It is ABSURD!!
If you can entertain the idea that a 757 hit the Pentagon then you may as well give up on the whole crusade for truth. It is just as easy to believe that wtc7 fell in sympathy with the twin towers or that the fires melted the steel (which incidentally is what "experts" are supposed to have said). Start believing the ridiculous and they have won. Quote "experts" spouting nonsense as "proof" and they have won. Only fully committed believers in the fact that it was a government cover-up can truly win this crusade for a new and proper investigation. By believing the drivel they spout as possible explanations that a 757 hit the pentagon you allow them to say "why do you need an enquiry?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's difficult to know what to say to somebody who refuses to listen to reason and ignores evidence - especially when that person seems to have genuine difficulty with reading and comprehension, deliberately distorts what other people say, calls people all kinds of silly names for the heinous crime of having a different opinion, accuses people of being shills etc etc....
| blackcat wrote: | | I can't prove it wasn't a chocolate elephant that crashed in to the pentagon either. Negatives are notoriously difficult to prove. I will not be entertaining the notion that it was a chocolate elephant however as I find the idea absurd. NOW do you see why I find your repeated assertions that a 757 may have hit the Pentagon to be risible. It is ABSURD!! |
why anyone would want to prove that a chocolate elephant hit the pentagon is beyond me. your whole point is absurd.
| blackcat wrote: | | If you can entertain the idea that a 757 hit the Pentagon then you may as well give up on the whole crusade for truth. |
this is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far (and that's saying something). you can attack the official conspiracy in any number of ways - it is not necessary to believe that no 757 could possibly have hit the pentagon, and it's silly to believe it so unshakeably when you can't prove it.
| blackcat wrote: | | It is just as easy to believe that wtc7 fell in sympathy with the twin towers or that the fires melted the steel (which incidentally is what "experts" are supposed to have said). Start believing the ridiculous and they have won. Quote "experts" spouting nonsense as "proof" and they have won.. |
this is just utter nonsense - and it's especially laughable as the links I posted are mainly from http://911research.wtc7.net/ - a site which has spent the last few years arguing the case for controlled demolition of wtc7 (hence the name) and the twin towers....
| blackcat wrote: | | Only fully committed believers in the fact that it was a government cover-up can truly win this crusade for a new and proper investigation. |
wow - we agree on something! maybe there's hope for you yet. of course it's not necessary to believe that no 757 hit the pentagon to believe that it was a government cover-up....
| blackcat wrote: | | By believing the drivel they spout as possible explanations that a 757 hit the pentagon you allow them to say "why do you need an enquiry?" |
oh dear - it was just a blip....
if you actually read the links I posted you will find that they consist of anything but drivel. on the other hand they do demonstrate that many of your unshakeable beliefs about what hit the pentagon are questionable to say the least.
and if you have an unshakeable belief in something that can easily be refuted - like many of your claims about the pentagon can be - and you also make these claims central to the case against the official consipracy theory, you are shooting us all in the foot.
and if you can't see that there's no hope for you.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| so a plane hit a power generator, five lamp poles and then smashed through the Pentagon before punching through to the C ring then did it Jake? Know that for a fact do you? At the end of the day all the Pentagon has to do is release one of their confirmed 84 images that shows the plane hitting and they could stop all us so called tin hat alien loving loch ness monster buddy conspiracy theorists. I'm no nutjob but better that than someone like you or Jay Ref who see fit to defend the official story which many people forget has already been changed 3 times. How you can defend people that have done this is beyond me. I don't know what happened that day and neither do you regardless of how many links you provide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
duh - try reading the whole thread....
| Eckyboy wrote: | | so a plane hit a power generator, five lamp poles and then smashed through the Pentagon before punching through to the C ring then did it Jake? |
I don't know - and never claimed it did. can you prove absolutely that it didn't? or that something else did? until you can I suggest you keep an open mind....
| Quote: | | Know that for a fact do you? |
if you read the thread you'll see that I make no such claim....
| Quote: | | At the end of the day all the Pentagon has to do is release one of their confirmed 84 images that shows the plane hitting and they could stop all us so called tin hat alien loving loch ness monster buddy conspiracy theorists. |
maybe....
| Quote: | | I'm no nutjob but better that than someone like you or Jay Ref who see fit to defend the official story which many people forget has already been changed 3 times. |
I have never defended the official story and neither do any of the links I posted....
| Quote: | | How you can defend people that have done this is beyond me. |
I didn't - and neither do any of the links I posted. how you can possibly think I did is beyond me....
| Quote: | | I don't know what happened that day and neither do you regardless of how many links you provide. |
lol - as I said above - "I don't know what hit the pentagon and neither do you. that's why I think it's best to keep an open mind about it."
so apart from being 100% wrong about me and everything i said, you're right on target....
by the way - have you met blackcat? you 2 should get on famously!
have a nice day |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | What exactly do expect to see when a plane hits a concrete wall at over 450mph? You expect it to go "oof" and just sit there in 5 large pieces on the lawn? |
I have no expectations!! Where are the pieces of a 757? Are you saying there should be no large pieces on the lawn? How do YOU know? Are you an expert in plane crashes? An engine is immense and made of pretty resilient stuff - where are they?? The engines? Why do you push this jibberish? Is the next step the melting steel at wtc7?? * off *!!! You are a shill !!! |
The pieces of the 757 were found inside the Pentagon, which isn't that surprising since the plane hit the pentagon. I wouldn't expect large pieces, because a jet airliner is mostly air, because the internal space is maximised for carrying passengers and cargo. The skin is made of thin aluminium to make the plane as light as possible, but this also means that if impacted at 450mph it will crumple up a lot. You can't see the plane because it is inside the building.
Jet engines aren't the invincible objects that you seem to think they are. They are designed to withstand high temperature while being as light as possible. This doesn't mean that they are indestructible. They did punch holes through the wall of the pentagon however, but this meant that they were destroyed in the process.
The passengers were identified from DNA evidence from fragments of skin and bone. There were few bodies as such. Just pieces of flesh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jason67 wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | blackcat wrote: |
He saw a few small parts and a sheet of glass. YOU read it!!! It is not what you expect to see when a 757 plane has supposedly crashed!!
|
What exactly do expect to see when a plane hits a concrete wall at over 450mph? You expect it to go "oof" and just sit there in 5 large pieces on the lawn? |
Well I dont expect it to slide into a small hole, wings and tail folding in neatly, punch through five rings of concrete, turn into vapour, but still be able to identify over 90% of the bodies.
All they need to do is show the world the cctv shots from the various other cameras, job done. We have seen the planes flying into the wtc buildings a million times, so why not so us these? |
It didn't slide into a small hole, it punched a hole the diameter of a 757 body. The wings and tail didn't fold in neatly, they were ripped to shreds. The "bodies" were identified from framents of skin and bone etc. They weren't whole bodies, they were tiny bits of bodies. Like the tiny bits of plane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The pieces of the 757 were found inside the Pentagon, which isn't that surprising since the plane hit the pentagon. I wouldn't expect large pieces, because a jet airliner is mostly air, because the internal space is maximised for carrying passengers and cargo. The skin is made of thin aluminium to make the plane as light as possible, but this also means that if impacted at 450mph it will crumple up a lot. |
And they were all little tiddly bits as well. Unlike any crash in history where huge parts of the plane can be found even when they hit something as immoveable as a mountain!!
If it is so fragile and crumples (I actually agree with that!) then how did it manage to penetrate three layers of fortified walls and leave a neat exit hole without actually exiting!!!
And the engines ARE very heavy and VERY hard. They do NOT disintegrate or vaporize or whatever they are supposed to have done. This whole episode is a pack of lies and is so blatant it is sickening to read your posts that even countenance any possibility that it was a 757. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jake/Johnny Pixels
I Just thought a little review of the situation was called for at this stage. The following is a brief outline of what happened at the Pentagon om 9/11. You are expecting people to believe a 757 MAY have hit the pentagon in spite of this???? Are you serious??
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight77Passengers.shtml
| Quote: | PentagonAttackLegend
At a September 12th Pentagon press conference, Ed Plaugher, fire chief of Arlington County, who had responsibility for the fire-fighting operations at the site, said in a news briefing: [WWW]DoD
Question: Can you give us any sense of the area that was destroyed, how wide it is? How many feet? And did it break through to all five rings of the Pentagon?
Plaugher: It did not break through to all five rings, and I do not know the measurements.
Question: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?
Plaugher: First all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.
He is also very vague about the recovery of bodies, usually a prime concern:
Question: Have you removed the bodies?
Question: Could you tell me how many bodies have been removed?
Plaugher: We have no information on any type of casualty or body counts at this time.
Question: By that you mean you haven't removed any bodies yet?
Plaugher: I will not say that, okay? But that whole process is being set up and is going to take some time. So again, that's not part of this briefing.
At the September 14th Pentagon press conference, James Schwartz, assistant chief, of the Arlington County Fire Department states: [WWW]DoD
Question: Have they been able to tell you, when they got to that part, whether or not there were any, you know, recognizable elements that an aircraft itself had crashed into the building, or is it all pretty much vaporized? Are there are any -- is there a tail, is there a wing, is there anything there?
Schwartz: I certainly would not use the term "vaporized," but there's not a lot of the aircraft that is recognizable at all.
These DoD press conferences clearly state that they found no sizeable debris either in or around the point of entry. So the "official" story is that there were no significantly sized portions of the aircraft found such as fuselage sections left after the crash and subsequent fire.
At a September 15th Pentagon press conference, when Terry Mitchell is asked about the depth to which the plane penetrated the Pentagon, he states: [WWW]DoD
Mitchell: It's more to the right of where we were at. This is the -- this is in a renovated section on the opposite side, if you were facing the opposite side. This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there.
Question: Which area is that?
Mitchell: This is right inside the E Ring.
Question: Did you see any evidence of the aircraft anywhere?
Mitchell: Yes, I did. You could see just small pieces of it.
Question: Well, how far in?
Mitchell: Again, we're trying to figure out how it came into the building.
On Friday September 14th, Pentagon officials took about 75 reporters on a tour of the devastation -- and efforts already underway to rebuild it -- for the first time: [WWW]DoD
"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building," said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation.
The plane penetrated three of the Pentagon's five rings, but was probably stopped from going farther by hundreds of concrete columns. The plane peeled back as it entered, leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther inside, Evey said.
Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, [WWW]said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.
The problem here is that the nose cone of a Boeing 757 is made of carbon-fibre (like fibreglass); there is no metal nose cone on a 757. An average strength man (or strong woman) could make mincemeat of a 757 nose cone in about 15 minutes with nothing more than a light axe or a sledgehammer - the same cannot be said of the outer wall of the Pentagon. Punching through stone façade and 2 exterior concrete and brick walls, 4 or more interior poured concrete walls, and a poured concrete floor, to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers is out of the question.
In summary, the DoD claims:
* the Boeing did a 4.5 g. turn to descend from 7500 feet in 1 1/2 minutes (even though the Boeing flight control software won't allow more than 1.5 g. turn), 
* hit the side of the Pentagon with pin-point-precision (even though the pilot Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna)
* where the wings peeled back so it could fit through an 8 m. hole (even though the Boeing is 13.6 m. high, 47.3 m. long, with a wingspan of 38 m. and a cockpit 3.5 m.)
* leaving no significant debris outside (not even the 7 tonne engines which are mounted on shear-off bolts, and are largely made of titanium)
* where that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire (which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.)
* except for the nose (made of fiberglass) punched through a total of about 3-4 m. of steel reinforced concrete to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In summary, the DoD claims:
* the Boeing did a 4.5 g. turn to descend from 7500 feet in 1 1/2 minutes (even though the Boeing flight control software won't allow more than 1.5 g. turn) |
the claim that the aircraft's manouevres could not have been done by a 757 is false....
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#approach
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html#hanjour
| Quote: | | * hit the side of the Pentagon with pin-point-precision (even though the pilot Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a Cessna) |
how do you know where he was aiming? oh yeah - you don't....
| Quote: | | * where the wings peeled back so it could fit through an 8 m. hole (even though the Boeing is 13.6 m. high, 47.3 m. long, with a wingspan of 38 m. and a cockpit 3.5 m.) |
this is a simple mistake that is easily disproved here....
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage_files/hole11.jpg
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html
| Quote: | | * leaving no significant debris outside (not even the 7 tonne engines which are mounted on shear-off bolts, and are largely made of titanium) |
there is debris visible in photos of the crash site. but if it went all the way inside why would it leave huge quantities of debris on the outside? you're not making sense....
| Quote: | | * where that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire (which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.) |
not all of it was. and if you're claiming that what happened defies the laws of physics it's up to you to prove it. and you could also make the same claim about the planes that hit the wtc - so do you believe that no plane hit the wtc as well?
| Quote: | | * except for the nose (made of fiberglass) punched through a total of about 3-4 m. of steel reinforced concrete to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of board for photographers. |
again this is a combination of a red herring and a simple mistake.
first of all, the nose is only the frontmost portion of the fuselage, which is about 150 feet long, and contains many materials heavier than fibreglass....
and see here....
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html
in particular:
"This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall withough having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between."
further info here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html
can't you see how easy this stuff is to discredit and disprove? and do you seriously think that peddling this kind of nonsense helps the 9/11 truth movement?
and while we're at it why don't YOU explain to us how the pentagon attack happened an show how YOUR theory is supported by:
- the eyewitness evidence
- the alleged aircraft's manouevres prior to hitting the pentagon
- the damage/displacement to the lamp posts, cable spools and generator before whatever it was slammed into the wall
- the damage to the pentagon itself
- the recovered debris
so we can really see if your unshakeable beliefs stand up to scrutiny..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | and there are loads of videos on youtube that promote the "theory" that no planes hit the wtc - do you believe them as well? |
No - they are rubbish posted by shills like yourself posing as truth seekers but really trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Just like all the junk you post about a 757 "possibly" hitting the Pentagon when you show by your posts that you support the official version hook line and sinker. Presumably you have been allocated the Pentagon and your colleagues each have a different aspect of 9/11 to work on. Good luck to you - the truth is spreading faster and faster and you have no chance of stopping this bandwagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
